Tyndale's New Testament

Wordsworth, the publishers, have reprinted many of the old "Classics of World Literature". Spiritual gems include Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress along with William Tyndale's New Testament. 

Tyndale was the Protestant who translated the Bible into English for the first time from the original languages. I mention him here. His translation is carried over some 90% into our Authorised Version. 

It may be safely said, without any disrespect whatsoever, that our AV translators cleaned up parts of this older translation. They did well, for example, to remove the several references to Easter as they appear in the four gospel accounts. In Matthew 26:1 (Tyndale doesn't number his verses) he has Jesus telling the disciples, "Ye know that after two days shall be Easter..." While it is debatable whether the Greek word  paschal is properly translated as "Easter" in Acts 12 and our AV men retained Tyndale's translation, as indeed did the Geneva Bible translators also. They also cleaned up Tyndale's rendering of when the Apostle John was "in the spirit" while on the bleak Isle of Patmos in Revelation 1:10. Tyndale tells us that it was "on a Sunday" while the AV rightly render the Greek text as "the Lord's Day." It is pleasing to see that the AV men rendered Matthew 1:23 as "virgin" as did the Geneva men and those responsible for the Bishop's Bible. Tyndale rendered it as "maiden" which might leave room for doubt, although there are other indications, of course, within the text that indicate her virginal purity. Thankfully, Tyndale restores the word virgin in Luke 1:27 (x2) 

This edition includes the prologues which Tyndale wrote before the epistles which he translated. They are generally short - most are but a paragraph long or are contained in one page. However, Paul's epistle to the Romans drew 20 pages of comment from Tyndale's pen. It is here that we get a glimpse into his Calvinist heart.  He tells us that chapters 9-11 deal with the doctrine of "God's predestination" (so called because of its source) and how it relates to "whether we shall believe or not believe." This is about as far away from the "I get to decide with my casting vote" stuff as you can get.   

Some, though not all, of Tyndale's annotations are included in this Wordsworth edition - those included are considered the most relevant by the editor. His note in Ephesians 5 where reference is made by Paul to Christ sanctifying and cleansing the church with the washing of water by the word relate sit to baptism. I quote: "Baptist saveth through the word; that is, through faith in the word according to the covenant made in Christ." 

The editor has also seen fit to give us a brief historical insight into Tyndale's work and includes an introduction from "William Tyndale to the Reader" and then "William Tyndale, once more, to the Reader." 

The Wordsworth edition may be said to be a cheap, economy edition which is fine by me. It sits proudly on my bookshelf and is occasionally consulted out of interest. I see it as a vital component of our Protestant heritage.

* weecalvin1509 (photograph)
* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

Saved or being saved?

Click on photograph to enlarge

Our friend Dr Gray wisely (at least as far as this tweet is concerned) does not commit himself further than to ask the question. A Baptist preacher who comments on this tweet takes it a lot further, charging some with taking the birth out of the new birth and making it a process. 

The KJV translators did not pluck their words out of nowhere. They were not given to them by inspiration as they were given to the original pen men who were moved by the Holy Spirit. The KJV translators studied the Hebrew and the Greek, consulted among themselves etc., and gave us our excellent Protestant translation of God's word, just as the Geneva Bible translators and Tyndale had done before them. 

Getting back to 1 Corinthians 1:18, the long and the short of it is, that the Greek tense of the words translated in our AV "are saved" is what is known as the present passive participle which denotes an ongoing process.  Other places where it appears includes the following: 

Luke 4:15  And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. 

Luke 21:12 ...delivering you up to the synagogues...

John 1:38 They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) ...

John 8:4  They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 

John 13:22  Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. 

Philippians 3:10 ...the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 

In Hebrews 11:37, it actually appears 3 times in relation to the persecuted people of God:

being destitute, afflicted, tormented; 

Robertson uses the phrase present passive participle 102 times in his Word Pictures and obviously I cannot go through them all. I note, however, the following:

Often the AV translators went for the English words that clearly denoted an ongoing matter. Usually words ending in -ing as in Luke 21:12 above or often with the word "being" (another --ing word). Sometimes they used -ed words. Examples:

2 Corinthians 7:5 ...but we were troubled on every side;

Ephesians 4:4 ..tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine...

I noticed that Mr Spurgeon preached on this text. He preferred the Revised Version reading, but (it appears) only on the basis that it renders the Greek word "logos" (as it appears in both sets of texts) as "word" rather than "preaching."  I quote:-

First, then, we speak Upon “THE WORD OF THE CROSS.” borrow the term from the Revised Version, which runs thus: — “The word of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness, but unto us who are being saved it is the power of God.” This is, to my mind, an accurate translation. The original is not “the preaching of the cross,” but “the word of the cross.”

He does not touch, at this point in the sermon, on whether or not he agrees or disagrees with the rendering "being saved". Later on in the sermon he lights upon it, only to say:

"We have been delivered, also, from the power of Satan. That evil prince has great power over men, and once we were led captive at his will. Even  now he attacks us, but we overcome him through the blood of the Lamb. We are also daily delivered from self and from the world, and from all things that would enthral us. We are being saved; yea, we are saved. Every  day a saving force is operating upon us to set us free from the thraldom of  corruption. This we feel and know."

He expresses no dissatisfaction with the rendering. He quotes both and makes a double application centering mainly on the present. In his notes in his "Devotional Bible" (based on the AV) Spurgeon sheds no further light on the controversy.

If we are using the AV as the sole standard of how the present passive participle should be translated, then we see the AV men themselves expressed it both ways.  An interesting one then for those who think there is conflict here would be to reconcile where our AV translators use the word "being" in relation to our justification: 

Rom 3:24  Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 

Is justification an act of God's free grace and therefore rooted in the past i.e. at that moment we believed or is it an ongoing matter? 

It is interesting that the AV didn't render the words in 1 Corinthians 1:18 "but unto us who were saved." The only use in the entire Bible of the phrase "were saved" is in relation to a historical reference to Noah's family and the flood (1 Peter 3:20) 

FTR: I make no pretense to be a Greek scholar. I learned some basic stuff at Bible College 30 years ago. 

Click on photograph to enlarge

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

Cloud endorses Bishop

Click on Picture To Enlarge 

Little here by way of comment needed. G.S. Bishop's book is available online here. I bought my paperback copy second hand over 30 years, published by Baker House. (Beside me as I type.)  It really is worth reading, both in its defence of the Authorised Version and the doctrines of the Bondage of the Will and Unconditional Election.

See also:

* How reliable is David Cloud as a critic of Calvinism?
* Answering David Cloud's lament that Calvinism is on the march!
* Answering David's Cloud's 'Calvin's Camels' attack 
* Is David Cloud tripping over his own feet?  
* David Cloud's 'Hot sermon' on 'Calvinism - Who is the enemy?' analysed


* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

kjv

Précis of message preached on the FPC stand in relation to modern versions of the Bible

THIRD MESSAGE: MODERN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE:
(OVER TWO WEEKS: READ PS 119:89-105/JER 36:11-30)

We spent the first message looking at the Free Presbyterian Church and its use only of the Authorised (King James) Version of the Bible in its pulpit and ministry administrations.

The central place of the Bible in the Christian Faith necessitates our defending of it against Satan's attacks. Satan attacks either directly (denial) or indirectly - use of the counterfeit (2 Corinthians 11:4)

Many modern versions are a Satanic attack on the word of God.We looked at the manuscript issue.

Basically there are two camps.In one, you have the Received /Majority Text folk (us) and in the other, you have the Westcott and Hort folk (Most of the modern versions including the NIV; NAS etc.,)

We believe the latter use texts which were edited by a 2nd Century heretic called Origen (cp. Paul's warnings: Acts 20:29-30/2 Corinthians 2:17) who removed many phrases, verses or entire passages.

The Majority Text escaped Origen's pernicious "corrections" and were preserved.

We looked at the unprincipled actions of Westcott and Hort who fathered the Revised Version (They were pro Rome and modernist)We looked briefly (and I judge on hindsight a little heavily) at how we may discern the genuineness of a text.

We also looked at the translation methods i.e. do we try and keep with what God actually said or are we are liberty to try and convey what He thought? We hold to the idea of translating word for word.

We spent the second message simply looking at key verses and observing how Satan sought to pervert them.

These were Genesis 3:15/Isaiah 7:14/Micah 5:2/Matthew 16:16-18 (with John 1:42)/2 Corinthians 5:21

In the latter verse, for example, (2 Corinthians 5:21) instead of rendering the words that Christ was made to be sin for us (i.e. that Christ has taken all the sin of the believer) the Good News Bible a.k.a. Today's English Version renders the words that Christ has shared our sins.This intrinsically means that Christ has some of our sins and we have some of our sins - and therefore we are damned for it takes only one unremoved sin to damn us in hell.

We gloried in the fact that the AV translators were stoutly Protestant.

Whilst the Free Presbyterian Church has a policy of using only the AV, we should not be confused with some of the KJV Only folk who make some unwarranted claims. 

We accept that the word of God is preserved and we believe that we have an unsurpassed and faithfully translated version in the KJV. This does not mean that there are not places in the AV, that could be better translated. We take the line propagated by the Trinitarian Bible Society:

"While perfection is not claimed for the Authorised Version (known in some countries as the King James Version), or any other version, it is known that the translators of the Authorised Version acknowledged the Divine inspiration, authority and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures; the fruitful use of their translation for nearly 400 years is evidence of the Lord's blessing upon their work."

After note: While I am still basically a AV only man (with the slight lump in the throat recorded above)  I also place a lot of store in the predecessor of the AV i.e. the Geneva Bible and (to a lesser extent) Tyndale's NT too. Perhaps since preaching the above sermon, I have come to see that there are some issues that we must simply take by faith and that the Day will declare it on some controversial matters. Suffice to say that I am happy with my AV. I do have a tendancy when quoting from it in the open air to slightly modernise the language somewhat, particularly dropping the "-eth" from words like "believeth" etc. As someone observed, no one ever got saved because the langauge was distinctly Elizabethian, other than the Elizabathians. I would imagine that some of the more strictly KJV folk would fight with me first rather than I fight with them. 

THE END 

SEE INDEX PAGE FOR FULL LIST OF ARTICLES ON THIS BLOG 

1tim3v16

THE AV, NIV AND 1 TIMOTHY 3 (AND 16)

Below are two key verses concerning the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus as rendered both by the Authorised Version (AV) and the New International Version (NIV) Perhaps some defender of the latter could throw some light on this subject for me.

AUTHORISED VERSION	NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.  (1 Timothy 3:16)	Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up into glory.  (1 Timothy 3:16)
These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. (John 12:41)	Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory, and spoke about him. (John 12:41)

1 Timothy 3:16 is the battleground of a controversy between the two different textual schools. The AV texts (based on the vast majority of available manuscripts) tell us plainly that "God" was manifest in the flesh - a clear reference to the Lord Jesus, as the rest of the verse makes clear. Silence the Arians and Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses etc., The minority texts (based on mainly two older texts of all currently available texts) drop the word "God" and substitute the word "He" instead. The minority text folk tell us that the word "God" is an interpolation which crept into the text and is not part of the word of God.  I don't agree, but I can see where they are coming from.

In John 12:41 both set of texts tell us that Isaiah saw "his" glory and we take this to mean the glory of Christ. Again, it is another proof text for the Deity of Christ because Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah (Isaiah 6) then ergo Christ is Jehovah. The NIV does not compromise on the Deity of Christ in this verse but takes the liberty of putting the interpretation ("He" = "Jesus") into the actual text. I agree 100% with the NIV interpretation, but not with the NIV translation because it is not a translation at all, but actually an interpolation.

The NIV adopts a relatively new method of Bible translation called "dynamic equivalence" where the writer's "thoughts" are given preference over his actual words. It is not what the writer said (or wrote) that is the important thing, but what he was actually thinking. And there can be no doubt that John was thinking that Isaiah really did see the glory of Jesus Christ when he saw Jehovah. Many other translations, including the AV, use the "formal equivalence" method. In other words, (no pun intended) the words are the all important thing and we can only judge what the writer was thinking from the actual words he carefully chose (and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to impart those thoughts to us. John could have used the words "Jesus' glory" but he didn't and both sets of texts tell us that he simply wrote "his glory" and leaves it to us to draw the conclusion. It is hardly for us to query the wisdom of the Holy Spirit in this matter. Every interpretation of Scripture is subject to the Scripture text itself, but if you write the interpretation into the text, then the all important ground of testing is gone. And that is a very dangerous situation.

Two things about this.

One, if the AV is accused of containing an interpolation ("God") in 1 Timothy 3:16…why then do the NIV translators do the very same in John 12:41?

Two, if dynamic equivalence is indeed the way forward for Bible translators, why does the NIV not take the liberty of rendering 1 Timothy 3:16 as "God" as the AV does? It is agreed that 1 Timothy 3:16 is a reference to Jesus Christ as God.

The AV is consistent with its own method of translation in both these verses i.e. formal equivalence in that it keeps faithfully to the wording of the majority text which it sees as the correct texts to use. On the other hand, the NIV seems to wander all over the place. It keeps strictly to the formal equivalent in its minority texts in 1 Timothy 3:16 but adopts the dynamic equivalent rendering in John 12:41.

To be fair, it must be said that the AV in its "God forbid" renderings of Paul's shocked denials in some epistles does not have any actual word for God. The original text gives a double negative which in Greek means an emphatic "No!" Personally I think they should be translated as "Definitely not!" or "Absolutely Not!" It could be argued that this is an interpolation. True, but the verses concerned are not as fundamental as those of 1 Timothy 3:16 or John 12:41. Just a thought.

THE END



SEE INDEX PAGE FOR FULL LIST OF ARTICLES ON THIS BLOG